IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Results for ""
Subscribe to Results for ""'s Posts

PTO Seeks Comments on Role of Artificial Intelligence in Inventorship

by | Mar 2, 2023 |

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published a Request for Comments Regarding Artificial Intelligence and Inventorship seeking input from stakeholders on inventorship issues that may arise as artificial intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies play a greater role in the innovation process. The deadline to submit comments is May 15, 2023.

As background, the PTO held its inaugural AI and Emerging Technologies Partnership meeting, during which panelists discussed AI’s increasing role in innovation, in June 2022. Although there appeared to be consensus that AI cannot “conceive” of inventions, some panelists contended that AI is merely a tool like any other tool used in the inventive process, while others pointed to situations in which AI systems can output patentable inventions or contribute at the level of a joint inventor. While the PTO has been exploring the contours of inventorship law with respect to AI-generated inventions, in August 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Thaler v. Vidal, finding that inventorship is limited to natural persons. The Court explained, however, that it was not confronted with “the question of whether inventions made by human beings with the assistance of AI are eligible for patent protection.”

Recognizing the uncertainty surrounding the role of AI inventorship in the wake of the Thaler decision, the PTO seeks public comment on several questions, including the following:

1. How is AI, including machine learning, currently being used in the invention creation process?

2. How does the use of an AI system in the invention creation process differ from the use of other technical tools?

3. If an AI system contributes to an invention at the same level as a human who would be considered a joint inventor, is the invention patentable under current patent laws?

4. Do inventions in which an AI system contributed at the same level as a joint inventor raise any significant ownership issues?

5. Is there a need for the PTO to expand its current guidance on inventorship to address situations in which AI significantly contributes to an invention? How should the significance of a contribution be assessed?

6. Should the PTO require applicants to provide an explanation of contributions AI systems made to inventions claimed in patent applications? If so, how should that be implemented, and what level of contributions should be disclosed? Should contributions to inventions made by AI systems be treated differently from contributions made by other (e., non-AI) computer systems?

7. What additional steps, if any, should the PTO take to further incentivize AI-enabled innovation (e.g., innovation in which machine learning or other computational techniques play a significant role in the invention creation process)?

8. What statutory changes, if any, should be considered as to US inventorship law, and what consequences do you foresee for those statutory changes?



read more

All the Benefits of a Reverse Triangular Merger, None of the IP Merger Mess

by | Mar 2, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s claim that the defendant failed to provide a payment conditioned on the sale, merger or transfer of certain intellectual property since ownership was not transferred via the merger. GSE Consulting, Inc. v. L3Harris Techs., Inc., Case No. 22-10647 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2023) (Rosenbaum, Lagoa, Wetherell, JJ.)

L3Harris specializes in defense and information technology and until recently was known as Harris Corporation. The name change from Harris to L3Harris was the result of a reverse triangular merger it executed over 2018 and 2019 whereby its subsidiary, Leopard Merger Sub, merged with its target, L3 Technologies.

In 2008, Harris and GSE combined forces to develop an oil sands heavy oil recovery process. In addition to yielding intellectual property relating to the process’s corresponding radio frequency heating technology, the collaboration resulted in a consulting agreement that would have extended through December 31, 2022. Under the consulting agreement, GSE provided its specialized infrastructure and energy consulting services on call and assigned all its rights to intellectual property developed under the agreement to Harris. In return, GSE received base pay and the right of first refusal for 10% of the direct labor workshare of Harris’s radio frequency heating projects.

The consulting agreement also included several payment conditions to benefit GSE or mitigate its risk. GSE believed that the Harris-L3 merger triggered the following condition to the tune of $4 million:

6.b. Payments calculation for the following to be 3% of market capitalization, capped at $4M:

 

  1. in the event the IP is sold, merged or transferred and the primary basis of the sale is not the IP.

GSE argued that the intellectual property relevant to the consulting agreement had “merged” because the Harris-L3 plan of merger addressed that intellectual property and included it in the merger. GSE therefore issued a $4 million invoice to L3Harris.

L3Harris rejected the invoice, arguing that while the plan of merger addressed the relevant intellectual property, the relevant language declared that the merger would have no effect on Harris and L3’s respective ownership interests: “all such rights will survive unchanged after the consummation of the [merger].” According to L3Harris, ownership of the relevant intellectual property did not change through the merger. Not long after rejecting GSE’s invoice, L3Harris also shut down its radio frequency heating program.

GSE subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, and the parties filed competing summary judgment motions. GSE maintained its position that it was owed $4 million but also argued that if the district court found the payment provision ambiguous then it should consider testimony from those who brokered the agreement demonstrating that a corporate merger was sufficient to trigger payment. L3Harris argued that the provision was unambiguous and thus Florida law prohibited considering extrinsic evidence. L3Harris also argued that its merger didn’t involve anything that triggered payment (i.e., the relevant intellectual property was not sold, merged or transferred).

The district court granted [...]

Continue Reading



read more

PTO to Begin Issuing Electronic Patent Grants

by | Mar 2, 2023 |

On February 28, 2023, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a final rule announcing it would begin issuing electronic patent grants (eGrants) starting April 18, 2023. These eGrants are the official copies of patent grants in an electronic format. During a limited transition period, the PTO will also provide a bound paper version as a ceremonial copy. Once the transition period is over, a bound paper version will be available for a nominal fee. The PTO did not specify when the transition period would end. The Federal Register notice can be found here.

To implement the eGrant, the PTO is removing and reserving 37 CFR 1.315, which states that “[t]he patent will be delivered or mailed upon issuance to the correspondence address of record.” Because patents will be issued electronically, the PTO will no longer physically deliver the patent grant by mailing it to the correspondence address. Instead, the eGrant will issue electronically via the Patent Center.

In addition to the ceremonial paper copy, for a fee, the PTO will still offer certified copies (in accordance with 37 CFR 1.13) and presentation copies. The PTO will no longer accept orders for advance copies of issued patents.

By moving to eGrants, the interval between issue fee payment and patent issuance will be shorter. Thus, applicants will need to be more diligent in filing continuations, divisionals and Quick Path Information Disclosure Statements. For example, Issue Notifications will be available electronically via the Patent Center after the issue fee is paid, usually on the Wednesday or Thursday before the patent issues. The PTO envisions that for those who do not participate in the e-Office action program, a patent may issue electronically before the applicant even receives the mailed Issue Notification.



read more

DC Circuit to Disputes Ancillary to Patent Matters: “You Can’t Sit with Us”

by | Mar 2, 2023 |

For the first time, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit addressed whether appeals of discovery orders ancillary to a patent suit are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The DC Circuit joined its sister circuits and held in the affirmative. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Förderung Der Angewandten Forschung E.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 22-7001 (DC Cir. Feb. 17, 2023) (Srinivasan, Henderson, JJ., Edwards, Sr. J.)

In February 2017, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Förderung commenced a civil action for patent infringement against Sirius XM Radio in the District of Delaware. During discovery, Fraunhofer subpoenaed for deposition Sirius XM’s former Chief of Marketing Officer, My-Chau Nguyen, a resident of Washington, DC.

After Nguyen failed to appear for her deposition, she filed a motion in the US District Court for the District of Columbia to quash the subpoena. Fraunhofer responded with a cross-motion to compel Nguyen’s deposition and a motion for sanctions. The DC district court denied Nguyen’s motion to quash, ordered her to sit for deposition, found her in contempt for failing to appear for deposition in the first instance, and expressed an intent to award sanctions upon Fraunhofer’s submission of documentation reflecting fees and costs. Fraunhofer appealed to the DC Circuit.

The DC Circuit first addressed whether it had jurisdiction to consider Nguyen’s challenge to the district court’s order compelling her deposition in light of the fact that Nguyen’s deposition had already been taken at the time of appeal. The Court held that Nguyen’s challenge was moot because “[n]umerous courts have held that an appeal from enforcement of a subpoena becomes moot once the party has complied with the subpoena.” Therefore, the Court reasoned that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Nguyen’s subpoena challenge because she had already complied with the subpoena at the time of the appeal.

Next, the Court addressed whether it had jurisdiction to assess the merits of Nguyen’s challenge to the district court’s finding of contempt and intent to award sanctions. The Court determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider these issues.  The Court explained that because “the underlying litigation between Fraunhofer and Sirius XM in the District of Delaware arises under an Act of Congress relating to patents[,]” Nguyen’s discovery dispute in the DC district court was “ancillary to a patent suit.” The DC Circuit reasoned that only the Federal Circuit is vested with jurisdiction over appeals “arising under . . . any Act of Congress related to patents[.]” (28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).) Holding similarly to other circuits, the Court concluded that because Nguyen’s discovery dispute was ancillary to a patent matter, the ability to decide the merits of her appeal was solely within the province of the Federal Circuit.

The DC Circuit found that it did not have the authority to transfer Nguyen’s challenges to the Federal Circuit, however. The DC Circuit concluded that it was forced to dismiss rather than transfer because “this appeal could not have been brought [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Are You Ready for the UPC? Act Now to Prepare for its Opening on June 1

by , and | Mar 1, 2023 | ,

On February 17, 2023, Germany ratified the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and triggered the UPC’s entry into force on June 1, 2023. The UPC will revolutionize patent enforcement across Europe and impact companies around the world that hold European patents or conduct business in Europe.

Owners of existing European patents or pending applications can “opt out” of the UPC’s jurisdiction for an initial transitional period of at least seven years. Companies must act now if they want to opt out before the court officially opens.

Understanding the UPC

The UPC will have exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement and invalidity actions in its member states for patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), including existing European patents and new European patents with unitary effect (unitary patents). There are currently 17 EU Member States participating in the UPC (Germany, France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and Slovenia). Additional EU Member States may join the UPC in the future.

The UPC will have local and regional divisions in its member states, with a central division in Paris and Munich and a Court of Appeal in Luxembourg.

As a streamlined patent enforcement venue, the UPC will provide several new benefits to patent owners, including faster decisions with limited discovery and lower cost, and the possibility of injunctive relief throughout the member states. At the same time, the UPC will allow revocation of a patent in a single action with effect for all member states, alongside the possibility to oppose a European patent before the EPO.

European Freedom to Operate

Because of the UPC’s structure and incentives, patent litigation will likely increase in Europe, which will heighten the intellectual property (IP) infringement risk for companies doing business in Europe. If a company has not already done so, it should promptly review its competitors’ European patent estates to assess the potential risks and develop a defense strategy to avoid a surprise attack from a competitor after June 1, 2023.

European Enforcement Actions

Although the UPC is new and untried, it has the incentive to provide strong relief for those who trust it. If a company needs to bring a patent infringement action against a competitor and would like to do so in a fast, cost-effective manner, with the possibility of significant remedies, the UPC should be considered as a potential venue. The company should review its portfolio and infringement evidence to assess its opportunities.

Deciding Whether to Opt Out

The right to opt out European patent filings from the UPC’s jurisdiction will be available for an initial transitional period of seven years, which may extend to 14 years. It will be possible to reverse an opt-out, but not if the patent has been enforced or attacked in national court.

McDermott’s UPC Resource Center explores the various advantages and disadvantages of both staying in and opting out of the UPC.



read more

Webinar Series: McDermott IP Focus 2023

by | Feb 27, 2023 |

McDermott Will & Emery is committed to providing insightful commentary on IP developments from around the world to our Japanese clients. In light of that effort, we are continuing our free monthly webinar series, McDermott IP Focus. During these sessions, we will explore global developments in IP including disputes, transactions and procurement, with a significant focus on what Japanese companies need to know during this ever-changing business landscape.

Upcoming sessions:

  • March 2—Life Sciences Session: Pharma Brands v. Generics: Developments Affecting the Balance Between Exclusivity and Market Entry
  • April 6—Trademark Session: New Options for Trademark Enforcement in the US under the Trademark Modernization Act
  • April 21—PTAB Session: Strategic Considerations Before Filing IPR Petitions

Over the course of the series, we will feature a variety of speakers from McDermott’s offices around the world. These sessions are presented in English and a Japanese summary is provided orally.

Click here for session details and to register.



read more

When It Comes to Claim Construction, Prosecution History and Specification Rule

by | Feb 23, 2023 |

Addressing claim constructions across two patents that ultimately led to noninfringement findings by a district court, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed one construction because it was supported by the prosecution history but reversed another because it was unsupported by the specification. SSI Techs., LLC v. Dongguan Zhengyang Elec. Mech. Ltd., Case Nos. 21-2345, 22-1039 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2023) (Reyna, Bryson, Cunningham, JJ.)

SSI owns two patents directed to sensors for determining the characteristics of fluid in a container such as a fuel tank. One patent, referred to as the transducer patent, describes an exemplary sensor system containing a “level” transducer and a “quality” transducer. The two transducers use ultrasonic sound waves and time of flight to determine both a level of fluid in a given tank and a quality (i.e., concentration of diesel exhaust fluid). The other patent, referred to as the filter patent, describes a similar system but attempts to address the problem of erratic measurement results that may occur because of air bubbles embedded in the fluid. This patent claims a “filter” covering the sensing area that substantially prohibits gas bubbles from entering the sensing area.

Dongguan Zhengyang Electronic Mechanical (DZEM) produces systems that determine the quality and volume of diesel exhaust fluid that are used in emission-reduction systems for diesel truck engines. SSI accused DZEM of infringing both patents. In the district court action, DZEM brought a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement based on the court’s construction of certain terms that appear in the asserted claims. With reference to the transducer patent, the claims recite the need to “determine whether a contaminant exists in the fluid based on . . . a dilution of the fluid [] detected while the measured volume of the fluid decreases.” The district court determined that this claim element required that the contaminant determination actually consider the measured volume of the fluid. The district court predicated its determination on the prosecution history, having found that this term was amended to include the disputed term and that the applicant’s intention was to incorporate the specific error-detection capability recited in the specification. The parties had previously agreed that the DZEM products did not base the contamination determination on any consideration of the measured volume. As a result, the district court granted DZEM’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on the transducer patent.

Regarding the filter patent, the district court adopted DZEM’s construction of the term “filter,” which was “a porous structure defining openings, and configured to remove impurities larger than said openings from a liquid or gas passing through the structure.” DZEM’s accused sensors includes a rubber cover with four apertures. The district court found that the rubber cover was not “porous” because the apertures were “relatively large” when compared with the disclosed embodiments in the specification. As a result, the court granted DZEM’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on the filter patent. SSI appealed.

SSI challenged both constructions. Regarding the transducer patent, SSI argued that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Standing to Invalidate Trademark without Threat of Infringement Suit

by | Feb 23, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that when a party obtains a declaratory relief finding that it does not infringe a trademark, it no longer has Article III standing to pursue invalidation of the mark. San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union, Case Nos. 21-55642; -55662; -56095; -56389 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2023) (Bea, Ikuta, Christen, JJ.)

Citizens Equity First Credit Union (CEFCU) registered a trademark for the term “CEFCU. NOT A BANK. BETTER,” and further claimed to own a nearly identical common-law trademark for “NOT A BANK. BETTER.” In 2014, San Diego County Credit Union (SDCCU) obtained a registration for “IT’S NOT BIG BANK BANKING. IT’S BETTER.” CEFCU petitioned the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board to cancel SDCCU’s registration, claiming that it covered a mark that was confusingly similar to CEFCU’s registered and alleged common-law marks.

SDCCU sought declaratory relief in the district court seeking a noninfringement finding of CEFCU’s registered and common-law marks, an invalidity finding of CEFCU’s registered and common-law marks, and a finding that CEFCU falsely or fraudulently registered its mark. CEFCU unsuccessfully filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. SDCCU persuaded the district court that during the course of the cancellation proceedings, it became apprehensive that CEFCU would sue SDCCU for trademark infringement. The district court granted SDCCU’s motion for summary judgment on noninfringement and CEFCU’s motion for summary judgment on SDCCU’s fraudulent registration claim. The parties agreed to dismiss the claim that CEFCU’s registered mark was invalid. The only issue remaining was SDCCU’s count seeking declaratory relief to invalidate CEFCU’s common-law mark. After a bench trial, the district court determined that CEFCU’s common-law mark was invalid, entered final judgment and awarded SDCCU attorneys’ fees. CEFCU appealed.

In an appeal that raised a “bevy of issues,” the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction to invalidate CEFCU’s common-law mark following the grant of summary judgment in favor of SDCCU on its noninfringement claims. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in MedImmune v. Genentech and Ninth Circuit precedent, the Ninth Circuit applied the “reasonable apprehension” test to determine whether a controversy exists in a declaratory judgment action regarding trademark infringement. Under this test, a party has standing to seek declaratory relief of noninfringement if the party demonstrates “a real and reasonable apprehension that [the party] will be subject to liability” if the party’s course of conduct continues. Concrete threats of a trademark infringement suit are not required to create live controversy to provide standing to seek declaratory relief action.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that justiciable controversy existed at the pleading stage, pointing to CEFCU’s cancellation petition, CEFCU’s testimony that it was just a “matter of time” before actual confusion occurred in California, and CEFCU’s affirmative refusal to stipulate that SDCCU was not infringing CEFCU’s marks. However, once the district court rendered its declaratory judgment of noninfringement, the record lacked any evidence that an ongoing threat of liability was causing [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No First Place Trophy Here: Public Demo at Trade Show Found Invalidating

by | Feb 23, 2023 | ,

Addressing the public use bar of pre-America-Invents-Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to invalidate a patent because the patent owner’s disclosure of a prior art device at a trade show more than one year before the patent’s priority date was an invalidating prior public use. Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., Case No. 21-2246 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2023) (Prost, Reyna, Stoll, JJ.)

Minerva sued Hologic for infringement of a patent directed to surgical devices for a procedure called endometrial ablation, which stops or reduces abnormal uterine bleeding. The patent had a priority date of November 7, 2011, and the asserted claim included the term “the inner and outer elements have substantially dissimilar material properties” (SDMP term). The district court construed the SDMP term to mean that the “inner and outer frame elements have different thickness and different composition.”

On completion of discovery, Hologic moved for summary judgment of invalidity, arguing that the asserted patent claims were anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA § 102(b). According to Hologic, more than a year before the patent’s priority date, Minerva brought a device called Aurora to the 38th Global Congress of Minimally Invasive Gynecology sponsored by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL 2009)—an event dubbed the “Super Bowl of the industry.” During the AAGL 2009 conference, Minerva had a booth with 15 fully functional Aurora devices, gave a presentation discussing the Aurora devices and distributed brochures. In light of the record, the district court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims were anticipated under the public use bar. Minerva appealed.

Minerva raised three arguments on appeal. First, Minerva argued that disclosure of the Aurora device at AAGL 2009 was not a “public use” because Minerva “merely displayed” the device. Second, Minerva argued that there was no disclosure of the “invention” of the asserted claim because the Aurora device disclosed at AAGL 2009 lacked the SDMP term. Third, Minerva argued that the invention was not “ready for patenting” because Minerva was still improving the SDMP technology at the time of AAGL 2009, so the device did not function for its intended purpose of ablating “live human” tissue. The Federal Circuit addressed each argument in turn.

The Federal Circuit found that the district court had correctly determined that the Aurora device at AAGL 2009 was a “public use” since it was shown to individuals other than the inventor under no limitation, restriction or obligation of confidentiality. The undisputed record showed that Minerva pitched the Aurora device to various sophisticated industry members, who were allowed, without confidentiality obligations, to scrutinize the Aurora device closely enough to recognize and understand the SDMP technology Minerva later sought to patent.

The Federal Circuit also concluded that the Aurora device disclosed the SDMP term. The Court found that the inventors conceived of the SDMP technology before AAGL 2009 and that documentation about the Aurora device from before and shortly after the event [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Nothing Lasts for Everly, Not Even Copyright Co-Authorship Rights

by | Feb 23, 2023 |

Addressing a novel issue, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a statute of limitations can time-bar a defense in narrow circumstances where a defendant uses it to seek affirmative relief. Garza v. Everly, Case No. 21-5530 (6th Cir. Feb. 10, 2023) (Bush, Guy, JJ.) (Murphy, J., concurring).

After successful careers writing and recording music as the Everly Brothers, Don and Phil Everly disputed copyright ownership of certain songs. Don sued Phil’s estate, seeking declaratory judgment that Don was the sole author of “Cathy’s Clown.” After a bench trial, the district court held that Don repudiated Phil’s co-authorship of “Cathy’s Clown” and Phil failed to reassert his co-authorship rights within the three-year timeframe provided by the Copyright Act. The trial court also ruled that Phil’s estate was “time-barred from asserting he was a co-author as a defense,” since the Copyright Act time-barred him from asserting the same as a claim. Don died in the interim, and Phil’s estate appealed.

There were three issues on appeal:

  • Whether the lower court improperly applied the Copyright Act’s scheme for authorship claims
  • Whether the finding of Don’s repudiation was erroneous
  • Whether the court erred in applying the statute of limitation to Phil’s defense.

Regarding the authorship issue, the Sixth Circuit explained that the Copyright Act allows authors to transfer ownership of works while retaining certain rights, including a termination right that lets authors later reclaim copyright ownership. Phil’s estate argued that because termination rights are inalienable, the trial court erred in finding that Phil was not a co-author since he should have had the opportunity to reclaim his rights. The estate also argued that any statute of limitations regarding Phil reclaiming co-authorship should not have started tolling until all of Phil’s descendants learned of these rights. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, explaining that the lower court properly applied the Copyright Act. Because Phil did not dispute repudiation within the statutory period, the trial court correctly denied his co-ownership. Furthermore, the statute of limitations does not “refresh itself” when an owner dies, because descendants cannot obtain rights a decedent had forfeit.

Addressing the repudiation issue, the Sixth Circuit found ample trial evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion. The evidence included 1980s vintage letters, phone calls, and a “Release and Assignment” Phil signed containing language relinquishing his co-authorship rights in “Cathy’s Clown.” There was also credible testimony that Don “plainly and expressly repudiated Phil’s authorship” decades prior.

Finally, addressing the statute of limitations defense, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court. In doing so, it noted that Phil’s estate originally argued that Phil remained a co-author of “Cathy’s Clown” as a counterclaim to Don’s suit. It was only after Don successfully argued that the claim was time-barred that Phil’s estate “reframed the counterclaim into a defense.” The Court explained the general policies underpinning statutes of limitation and noted that they typically do not bear on defenses because plaintiffs could otherwise wait out the statutory periods for defenses before suing. However, this [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES